- 5 - had kept as the practice’s primary bookkeeper. Using these records, Mrs. Rinn identified for RA Hutchinson items of income and expense from the dental practice. RA Hutchinson then prepared written summaries of the income, expenses, and net profits from the dental practice, allowing all the expenses that Mrs. Rinn had identified.4 On the basis of the records that Mrs. Rinn had provided and the written summaries that RA Hutchinson had prepared, respondent determined deficiencies in Mr. Rinn’s 1995 through 2000 Federal income taxes.5 On the basis of this information, respondent separately determined deficiencies in Mrs. Rinn’s 1995 through 2000 Federal income taxes, treating the dental practice income as community property income, half of which was allocable to her.6 4 RA Hutchinson entered into a computer database petitioners’ canceled checks for 2000. To test the accuracy of the records that Mrs. Rinn provided, RA Hutchinson compared them to this database, matching the payees, dates, and amounts on the checks to the entries in Mrs. Rinn’s records. In addition, RA Hutchinson matched the records to bank statements, canceled checks, and receipts and also matched the records to a deposit analysis of petitioners’ accounts. 5 RA Hutchinson failed to include an allowable expense of $14,895.79 and made a $36 computational error in adding the allowable expenses. The notices of deficiency corrected these errors. 6 Ostensibly in an effort to avoid any whipsaw effect, respondent made superficially inconsistent determinations with respect to Mr. and Mrs. Rinn: he determined Mr. Rinn’s deficiencies on the basis that he was taxable on all his 1995 through 2000 dental practice income, while also counting 50 percent of the 1995 through 2000 dental practice income as (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011